From: Don Libes
Subject: Re: What other experimental languages connect to a windowing system? (was: Why is TCL successful ?)
Date:
Message-ID: <LIBES.94Jul24010604@muffin.nist.gov>
In article <···················@netcom2.netcom.com> ·····@netcom2.netcom.com (Niels P. Mayer) writes:
+ From: ······@sprite.Berkeley.EDU (John Ousterhout)
+ | This paragraph suggests that you don't understand Tcl. In fact the quoting
+ | rules are very simple and very consistent; I claim that it's quite
+ | straightforward to build higher-level constructs for UIs and I think there
+ | are many many examples in the Tcl community that illustrate this. One
+ | can make religious arguments ad nauseum, but I know of no technically
+ | sound evidence that lists of symbols are fundamentally better than strings.
+ It looks like a number of your users are also having trouble understanding
+ Tcl. In my opinion, this is because the quoting and parenthisation rules
+ are neither straighforward, simple, nor consistent. About once every week
+ or two, I see questions come up on comp.lang.tcl dealing with one or more
+ of the issues raised above. Examples of these problems have been
+ appended to the end of this article...
+ When users are having real problems, it becomes clear that the arguments
+ are no longer religious. In Lisp, you can get arbitrarily complex and
+ inscrutable once you go to extreme macro-ology and multiple levels of
+ backquoting. However, for the more typical cases handled by the neophyte,
+ the problems of quoting, time-of binding, time-of substitution, and scope
+ of bindings are more consistent and easier to understand in Lisp. And
+ when you need to, you know that there's a very nice macro capability
+ to back up any meta-level programming you need to accomplish.
As a computer scientist, I found Lisp beautiful and easy to learn.
But that doesn't mean I like programming in it. The heart of Lisp,
the list, models only a fraction of the algorithms and data structures
that I deal with. Everything else is 2nd class and dilutes the beauty
of the language. As soon as I wrote my first do-loop in Lisp, started
declaring my data structures, and explaining all sorts of things to
the compiler, the courtship was over. As I remember, macros were the
final straw. As you admit, they make the language inscrutable, and
since everyone uses them...
I am not defending Tcl. I am simply saying that I find your arguments
about Lisp contrived. There are obvious difficulties in Lisp to
beginners that you have conveniently forgotten. If as many people
were learning Lisp as were learning Tcl, I'm sure the number of
beginner-type questions to comp.lang.lisp would be just as high. I
actually went and looked to see what's happening in the newsgroups and
c.l.l has the same beginner questions that you can find in any
language newsgroup. Here's a classic sample:
>From: [name changed to protect the innocent]
>Subject: Book Recommendation????
>Message-ID: <··········@jadzia.CSOS.ORST.EDU>
>Date: 10 Jul 94 05:34:49 GMT
>
>I am new to the LISP language (studying for alomst a year) and have read
>a few books on LISP. I am interested in hard core (excuse the expression)
>programming using the LISP language. Most of the books that I have read
>have gotten confusing about halfway through. I know this may have been
>asked in the past but I would like to know what book(s) would be
>recommended for a beginner on LISP?? Any responses would be greatly
>appreciated...Thanks
This poor guy has been studying Lisp for a year, has read several
books on it and still considers himself "new to the language"?!
My point is, citing messages from confused novices doesn't prove the
language is difficult any more than messages from rabid experts proves
that the language is great.
Don Libes <·····@nist.gov>
From: Stephen J Bevan
Subject: Re: What other experimental languages connect to a windowing system? (was: Why is TCL successful ?)
Date:
Message-ID: <BEVAN.94Jul24135508@lemur.cs.man.ac.uk>
In article <···················@muffin.nist.gov> ·····@nist.gov (Don Libes) writes:
... As a computer scientist, I found Lisp beautiful and easy to learn.
But that doesn't mean I like programming in it. The heart of Lisp,
the list, ...
Lisp 1.5 perhaps, but things have moved on since then. Functions are
the heart of Scheme (I don't think Common Lisp has a heart :-)
... models only a fraction of the algorithms and data structures
that I deal with. Everything else is 2nd class and dilutes the beauty
of the language. ...
Are you implying that structures, vectors, ... etc. are all "2nd
class" in Common Lisp? Either way, what is your definition of "2nd class"?
From: Martin Rodgers
Subject: Re: What other experimental languages connect to a windowing system? (was: Why is TCL successful ?)
Date:
Message-ID: <775152085snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
In article <···················@muffin.nist.gov>
·····@nist.gov "Don Libes" writes:
> As a computer scientist, I found Lisp beautiful and easy to learn.
> But that doesn't mean I like programming in it. The heart of Lisp,
> the list, models only a fraction of the algorithms and data structures
> that I deal with. Everything else is 2nd class and dilutes the beauty
> of the language. As soon as I wrote my first do-loop in Lisp, started
> declaring my data structures, and explaining all sorts of things to
> the compiler, the courtship was over. As I remember, macros were the
> final straw. As you admit, they make the language inscrutable, and
> since everyone uses them...
Which Lisp dialect was this? Is it one with structures? Arrays?
Not everything is a list. Some things are even symbols.
> This poor guy has been studying Lisp for a year, has read several
> books on it and still considers himself "new to the language"?!
I still consider myself new to C, even tho I first used it in the
early 80s. Now I'm learning C++, which looks even worse. Most of
what I consider "learning a language" to be is more than the syntax
and the symantics. It's more like style and experience.
> My point is, citing messages from confused novices doesn't prove the
> language is difficult any more than messages from rabid experts proves
> that the language is great.
Agreed. Languages are just different. I love an exchange of opinions,
but please, _please_ let's not try to "prove" anything?
--
Martin Rodgers, WKBBG, London UK AKA "Cyber Surfer"
If "One likes to believe in the freedom of email", email
················@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper.
This is a shareware .signature -- please pass it on!